My inverted commas are intended; I mean, of whom are Schwartz and Jacoby thinking when they say that the History which was called Kratippos' was a forgery of the second or of the first century B.C. ? The reason for the question is this: most forgeries are of the form, ‘Here is an epigram by Simonides, a new chapter by Thucydides’; or ‘I, a humble scholar or an unknown person, X, have discovered the lost books of Livy, or (...) a hitherto unknown painting by Vermeer, or a privately printed edition of Sonnets from the Portuguese’; that is, the work forged is said to be by a famous person, the discoverer a relatively obscure one. Schwartz and Jacoby, however, say, or imply, that ‘Kratippos’ was the name of the forger, a man who lived, probably, in the first century B.C., and who deceived Dionysios of Halikarnassos and Plutarch ; but what did he assert that his history was ? Did he say, ‘I, Kratippos, have discovered a lost history dating from a generation after the end of the Peloponnesian war which is a continuation of Thucydides; authorship unknown’? Clearly not, for Dionysios says, and Plutarch quite plainly implies, that they took ‘Kratippos’ to be an author of the early fourth century. (shrink)

헤어의 아크라시아에 관한 전기 입장을 살펴보면, 진실한 도덕 판단에 이르는 한, 아크라시아 현상은 불가능한 것이다. 하지만 헤어의 아크라시아에 관한 전기 입장은 언어 논리에 지나치게 치중한 나머지, 현실에서 종종 볼 수 있는 도덕적 갈등, 죄책감, 후회와 같은 일상의 경험을 설명하는 데 부족하다는 비판을 받는다. 이와 달리 헤어의 아크라시아에 관한 후기 입장은 인간학적 한계를 고려하여 현실의 인간을 설명함으로써 아크라시아 문제에 관해 좀 더 설득력 있는 논의를 펼친다. 헤어의 아크라시아에 관한 후기 입장은 도덕적 사유의 두 수준 이론을 통해, 아크라시아에 관한 논의를 2가지 관점에서 (...) 분석하여 아크라시아 문제를 바라본다. 즉, 비판적 수준의 도덕적 사유를 하게 되면 아크라시아 현상이 불가능하다는 입장을 따르게 되지만, 직관적 수준의 도덕적 사유를 하게 되면 아크라시아 현상은 가능한 것이다. 하지만 헤어의 아크라시아 논의가 타당성을 지니기 위해서는 실험윤리학의 연구 성과를 바탕으로 면밀히 검토하고 그 한계를 분석해 볼 필요가 있다. 비판적 수준의 도덕적 사유의 측면에서 바라본 아크라시아 문제에 관한 검토는 도덕주의자가 현실적으로 존재 가능성 유무와 설사 있다 하더라도 그들을 확인할 수 있는 객관적인 방법이 없기 때문에 실험윤리학적으로 검토하기는 쉽지 않을 것이다. 또한, 직관적 수준의 도덕적 사유의 측면에서 바라본 아크라시아 문제를 검토하기 위해 vmPFC 손상 환자에 관한 다양한 연구 결과를 살펴보았지만, 여전히 헤어의 아크라시아 문제를 정당화하기 위해서는 더 많은 경험 과학적 증거들이 필요한 시점이다. 결국, 헤어의 아크라시아 문제에 관한 논의는 더 많은 경험 과학적 증거를 통해 학문적 실효성이 검증될 필요가 있다. 따라서 제한된 연구 성과를 바탕으로 단정적인 결론을 내리는 것은 바람직하지 않기 때문에, 실험윤리학적 증거를 바탕으로 철저히 검토하여 더 나은 방향으로 발전하고 진화되어야 할 것이다. (shrink)

The proposal of a semantics for quotations using explanatory notions drawn from philosophical theories of pictures. In Quotations as Pictures, Josef Stern develops a semantics for quotations using explanatory notions drawn from philosophical theories of pictures. He offers the first sustained analysis of the practice of quotation proper, as opposed to mentioning. Unlike other accounts that treat quotation as mentioning, Quotations as Pictures argues that the two practices have independent histories, that they behave differently semantically, that the inverted (...) class='Hi'>commas employed in both mentioning and quotation are homonymous, that so-called mixed quotation is nothing but subsentential quotation, and that the major problem of quotation is to explain its dual reference or meaning—its ordinary meaning and its metalinguistic reference to the quoted phrase attributed to the quoted subject. Stern argues that the key to understanding quotation is the idea that quotations are pictures or have a pictorial character. As a phenomenon where linguistic competence meets a nonlinguistic symbolic ability, the pictorial, quotation is a combination of features drawn from the two different symbol systems of language and pictures, which explains the exceptional and sometimes idiosyncratic data about quotation. In light of this analysis of verbal quotation, in the last chapters Stern analyzes scare quotation as a nonliteral expressive use of the inverted commas and explores the possibility of quotation in pictures themselves. (shrink)

The following remarks should be treated as a discussion of a semiotic claim posed in the quotation above. Kołakowski opted for this rather radical perspective to challenge semiotic views prevailing in the analytical philosophy of that day. No wonder that his intellectual opponents felt obliged to take a stand. I once tended to side with his opponents, which is one of the reasons why I would like to take the emerging opportunity and revisit Kołakowski’s argument. I won’t be discussing the (...) meaning of expressions in general, my purpose here is rather to, as the title suggests, bring into focus the meaning of non-literal expressions, particularly where they are supplied with inverted commas to imply their non-literal, metaphorical character. I chose to pursue this particular topic because there is little agreement as to what they actually mean. (shrink)

If the figure of philosophical sandhogs is appropriately descriptive of this recent work, still one must recognize the manner in which modern philosophers are working away in different caissons; the workers differ in judgment concerning what is hardpan and what bedrock; while some believe only hardpan confronts us all the way down, a philosophic version of the bends would seem not to be uncommon in the analogate. And it is tempting, while possibly not unfair, to think of the linguistic philosopher (...) functioning in the equipment of the skin-diver, boldly setting off destructive charges at the foot of any piling which might be capable of furnishing support to a prospective "metaphysical edifice." Or, more modestly, one might say that whereas both Collins and Tillich are at work on the "foundations of the theory of being" Smart's enterprise, in "a spirit of higher-order neutrality," is directed toward the linguistic foundations of the theory of "being'," carefully bracketed from ontological reference through a rich use of inverted commas. (shrink)

_Adaptation_ is the film this article is about. The rules of electronic articles require that it be quoted with underscores. 'Adaptation' is the subject and title of this articleand so should be indicated with inverted commas. Adaptation, without underlining and without quotation marks, is just adaptation, the thing itself. And here comes the question: what is Real Thing Itself? _Adaptation_ addresses the question of what the real, the primary, is, and its relation with that which is secondary -- (...) with the many interpretations, versions, understandings, adaptations. (shrink)

‘The Five Ways’ has been used as a translation of the phrase quinque viae which is used by Aquinas in Summa Theologiae I, 2, 3. I have put it in inverted commas because I think that it is a poor translation of the Latin. Aquinas’s use of the word via is sufficiently rich to confront us with a choice of English equivalents. There is no reason why in this context we should opt for ‘way’. Since we are not (...) being invited in ST I, 2, 3 on any journey in space, the initial presumption must be that ‘way’ should be used only if we fail to turn up anything more fitting. However, there is no difficulty in providing a more suitable English equivalent. Via is used by Aquinas in the sense of ‘a method of arguing’ or, more specifically, as designating particular arguments. When he considers the two viae by which Aristotle arrived at a certain conclusion, Aquinas clearly distinguishes an argument based on Physics VII from that based on Physics VIII. And in the same context Aquinas uses rationes as an equivalent of viae. Ratio is frequently used by Aquinas in the sense of the English word ‘argument’, as, for instance, in ST I, 30, 2 or ST III, 55, 5. Hence it seems to me that quinque viae should be translated as ‘five arguments’. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:RUSSELLS ARGUMENT AGAINST FREGE'S SENSE-REFERENCE DISTINCTION PAWEL TURNAu Philosophy I Jagiellonian University Cracow, Poland I n "On Denoting"l Russell argued that Frege's theory of sense and reference was an "inextricable tangle", but, ironically, many readers found the argument even more knotry. In an effort to make sense of it, commentators were often driven to attribute to Russell quite obvious and simple fallacies. A different approach was taken by Peter (...) Geach, who suggested that Russell's argument could be given a consistent reading if it were construed as arguing, not against Frege's theory, but against Russell's own earlier theory, which he put forward in The Principles of Mathematics. It is not an implausible hypothesis, considering how prone Russell was to misrepresent' other philosophers' views and read his own powerful ideas into their writings. In order to justifY Geach's hypothesis properly, one would have to show the crucial difference between Russell's and Frege's theories that made only one of them susceptible to the attack in "On Denoting ". Russell explicitly considered the two theories to be "very nearly the same"; this self-interpretation would have to be questioned. Geach's hypothesis would be further strengthened by providing an actual exegesis of the "On Denoting" argument as directed against The Principles ofMathematics theory. In this paper 1 will try to accomplish both of these tasks. Russell is often accused of confusing use and mention. The accusation is not fair, however. It is true that he does not insist on this distinction; he does not employ it extensively. But he is certainly Russell's Argument against Frege's Distinction 53 aware of it; he simply does not think that it is an important logical distinction. Today this view may seem almost incomprehensible, but that only shows the strength of Frege's influence on our ideas. There are two striking symptoms of Russell's lack of concern for the use-mention distinction: firstly, he does not observe the convention which says that putting an expression in quotation marks produces a name of that expression; secondly, he does not feel any need to employ the pair of terms "sentence" and "proposition", but contents himself with the latter only. The claim about Russell's use of inverted commas needs to be proved; I will come to that later. Russell's assertions are often ambiguous between use and mention of expressions. For example, he asserts that "propositions do not contain words" (PaM, p. 47). However, a few pages later, he speaks of propositions that contain the phrase "any number" (p. 53). If this is not to be self-contradictory, then either the term "proposition" must sometimes signifY a linguistic expression, or the term "phrase" must sometimes be understood without implying that a phrase consists of words. This ambiguity is openly admitted in a later article, where he writes: [we shall be concerned with] the distinction between verbs and substantives, or, more correctly, between the objects denoted by verbs and the objects denoted by substantives. Since this more correct expression is long and cumbrous, I shall generally use the shorter expression to mean the same thing. Thus, when I speak of verbs, I mean the object denoted by verbs, and similarly for substantives.2. Russell's attitude towards the distinction between use and mention is not unjustified. It has its reason in his view oflanguage and the subject -matter of logic. In Russell's view, the subject-matter of logic has nothing to do with language. Words, both spoken and written, are entirely outside its realm. Logic, just as other sciences (except linguistics ), is concerned with the entities indicated by words, and not with words themselves. Even the relation of indicating, which holds between words and things in the world, is of no interest to it: "mean1 In Lf(, pp. 39-56. russ.lI: the Journal of the Bertrand Russell Archives McMaster Univecsity Library Press n.s. 11 (summer 1991): 51- 66 ISSN 0036-o16~ 2 B. Russell, "On the Relations of Universals and Particulars", Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, n.s. 12 (r9II-12): 1-24; in Lf(, pp. 103-24 (at 107-8). 54 PAWEL TURNAU Russell's Argument... (shrink)

In this paper, I intend to show the right concern of phenomenology (specially of husserlian type) in the exploration of the textures of consciousness that explain themselves in the noetic-noematic structure of the phenomenological-transcendentally reduced world (within inverted commas). Therefore, the undoubtfulness of “immanent perception” takes, for instance, great importance in the virtual realm, as long as, in that realm, consciousness opens itself more radically to the intentional “otherness” than to what natural attitude calls “reality”. Nevertheless, although phenomenology (...) is able to justify the emergence of virtual reality (or of “real virtuality”), phenomenology has strategies ruling out the possibility that virtualization becomes simulation (deception). In this paper, this situation is presented as the ideal of the technical-virtual manipulation of what is given to consciousness. For this very reason, virtual attitude must keep an indispensable distance (strangeness effect), so that the sense of “reality” can continue to be a valid one. (shrink)

Some have argued that specifically moral demands or norms are justified by the constraints of rationality. On this view, any agent who comes to doubt, challenge, or reject the authority of moral demands does so on penalty of irrationality. According to this view, the agent who asks the question Why be moral? can be given a rational justification for the demands that morality makes on her, regardless of her individual reasons and motives. ;I consider amoralism as a test case. Could (...) a proposed justification of morality answer to the amoralist? I develop two characterizations of amoralism: the principled objector and the amoralist from indifference. I argue that normal moral agents may adopt or succumb to either type of amoralism without forfeiting their claim to rationality, and further, that such amoralists are not best understood as demanding a justification of morality. ;Some philosophers have objected that the notion of amoralism is conceptually mistaken or incoherent. I address three forms of this argument. First, I argue that the inverted-commas argument attributed to R. M. Hare fails to show that purported amoralists cannot really make or understand value judgments. Second, I argue that Michael Smith's internalist argument against amoralism is unconvincing. Third, I consider Christine Korsgaard's argument in The Sources of Normativity that the very nature of rational action entails moral obligation. ;I conclude by discussing the way in which a justification of moral demands can only be made internal to a particular moral outlook or way of life. To attempt to respond to amoralists who are radically dissatisfied with, or dissociated from, a moral perspective with a wholesale rational justification of morality is to misunderstand the nature of their disaffection as well as to misunderstand the project of moral philosophy. However, acknowledging the limited role of justification in moral theory and argument does not entail that moral philosophy's primary enterprise is merely the explanation of moral phenomena. Moral normativity is a function of our capacity for reflection. Thus, the work of moral philosophy lies in making reflective recommendations for which norms to adopt, how to obligate oneself and others, and how to live. (shrink)

If the truth of a given sentence, ‘P’ depends upon a certain non-linguistic fact, P then, how is the P without inverted commas involved in the statement, “ ‘P’ is true when P“? How is ‘P’ related to P? My answer suggests that any discussion of these questions leads inevitably to the ancient problem of particulars and universals.

The interpretation of in this context raises some nice problems. It is a term, a very flattering one, which had been appropriated to themselves by a certain class, in many cities at least, and by Dorians in relation to ‘Ionians and islanders’; it had thus become a cant phrase in current usage, the kind of phrase which when used tauntingly, as here, or ironically should be given inverted commas.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:When Is Writing Already Quotation?A Developmental Perspective on a Postmodern QuestionRebecca Wells-Jopling (bio)IntroductionPostmodern literary-critical thinking introduced into many disciplines in the 1950s and 1960s the quite peculiar, yet intellectually engaging, idea that what is written is always already-quoted. This idea is a logical derivation from the concurrent idea that writing is "prior to history"1 ; thus, what was written and what is written were simply always there, and someone (...) wrote it long before the reader held the written document in hand. The semiotician Roland Barthes claimed that "Every text, being itself the intertext of another text, belongs to the intertextual, which must not be confused with a text's origins: to search for the 'sources of' and 'influence upon' a work is to satisfy the myth of filiation. The quotations from which a text is constructed are anonymous, irrecoverable, and yet already read: they are quotations without quotation marks."2 In a similar vein, the cognitive psychologist David Olson argues that writing may be conceived not as transcription of speech, nor as a completely different mode of expression from speech, but rather as a type of reflexive language that points to itself as language.3 Writing is thus "quotation" that calls for "a distinctive mode of interpretation."4 The purpose of this article is to offer some reasons why conceiving of what is written as always already-quoted is likely not accurate as an ontological claim, but it may hold in particular circumstances and at a particular moment in human development. The phrase "already-quoted" will refer to this postmodern notion that entire texts, and components thereof, routinely call attention to their own opacity. Sometimes this opacity is achieved through the writer's use of actual quotation marks, but sometimes the opacity is only in the reader's experience of detecting a phrase or other unit in the text that summons up rather directly a perspective or another text in a way that blocks the transparent referential power that the words might otherwise have. [End Page 59]Quotation and the Questioning of AuthorityFirst, a bit of history. Pierre de la Ramée (also known as Peter Ramus) was a French philosopher and logician whose 1543 tract Dialecticae Partitiones in Latin was the first philosophical work to appear in French (in 1555 under the title Dialectique), and, more pertinently for this discussion of quotation, was one of the first writers to use proto-quotation marks in his writings.5 The earlier Latin text "is printed entirely in roman type, except the preface, which is entirely in italics. But in his French Dialectique all citations of foreign texts are distinguished by typography: italics are used for poetry, inverted commas enclose prose."6 His motivation, according to Compagnon,7 was the desire to bypass the kind of univocal authority suggested by a text in which voices cannot be distinguished from one another, and to point out the status of quoted passages as "reasoned examples or illustrations."8 If this was in fact de la Ramée's motivation, one wonders if he would have preferred that his entire text be put in yet a different typographical face in order to suggest that his own words in the text are not authoritative, but, contrary to Barthes's belief, not anonymous, utterly recoverable, and admittedly perspectival in nature.This detour through publishing history highlights an important difficulty in viewing what is written as always already-quoted: someone has to choose the quotations and arrange them (and, in de la Ramée's case, have the courage to counter the academy and point them out as citations). Is this act of choosing quotations also a quotation of a former chooser of quotations? In de la Ramée's case, obviously not, since he was the first to use different typefaces for different authoritative voices. This is one of the reasons why we cannot conceive of an entire written text as always already derivative. And if not derivative, then, by definition, not quoted. Assembling quotations and gluing them together with argumentation or poetry, as the case may be, is a creative act. This is so even if the words... (shrink)

The last part of Wittgenstein's Blue Book consists of a discussion of Solipsism. In the course of that discussion there occur several remarks which are explicitly concerned with the concept of a person and with the criteria of personal identity. This section is replaced in the Philosophical Investigations by half a sentence which reads: ‘… there is a great variety of criteria for personal “ identity ”’. Wittgenstein has italicised the word ‘identity’, and has placed it in inverted (...) class='Hi'>commas: I don't quite know why he does this, but it might be a hint to the effect that there is something slightly suspect about the notion of personal identity. (shrink)

This chapter distinguishes two sorts of things we can say about objects, something descriptive, and evaluative. Both, Hare notes, have descriptive function in that they can be used to convey factual information. Value‐words, however, also have prescriptive meaning, and this meaning is primary to their descriptive meaning, because in contrast to its descriptive meaning, it remains constant in all uses and can also be employed to change the descriptive meaning of a class of objects. Finally, Hare notes that value‐words can (...) be used with no commendatory meaning at all: the inverted commas use and the conventional use. (shrink)